The Cost Of Government Regulation: $1.75 Trillion

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a small “think tank” in Washington DC which puts out an annual report called: “Ten Thousand Commandments”. The report deals with the regulatory agencies of the US federal government and the cost of the regulations they continually introduce - and enforce. This report would be typical of the regulatory function of pretty well every government in the world.

In all interventionist economies, regulations are not set by the “lawmakers”. The “lawmakers” merely pass the laws, their enforcement is left to the various bureaucratic departments of government. And in order to “enforce” the laws, the bureaucrats see it as their function to impose regulations - countless thousands of them. The cost of complying with these regulations is met by those being regulated. It does NOT show up in the annual budgets (funded or unfunded) of the government.

In their Ten Thousand Commandments 2012 report which was released in June, the CEI estimates the cost of US government regulation at $US 1.75 TRILLION. That is just under half (48 percent) of the budget of the federal government. It is almost ten times the total of all corporate taxes collected and almost double the total collected from individual income taxes. It is also one-third higher than the total of all pre-tax corporate profits. It is the hidden cost of doing business in an interventionist economy. The fact that the cost of complying with these regulations is substantially higher than the total of corporate profits is a stark illustration of the end result of economic intervention. That end result is capital consumption.

In the US, the federal government lists its regulations in what is called the Code of Federal Regulations. These rules of the economic “game” cover 169,000 pages and more than ten new ones are added every day, seven days a week and 365 days a year. In 2011, the US Congress passed a total of 81 new “laws” while government agencies issued 3,807 new regulations. As the CEI points out, if there ever was an example of government without the consent of ANYONE - this is it.

Everyone likes to blame regulations for tying the hands of entrepreneurial interests, but they have to remember that some of these regulations are built to give corporations advantages over smaller businesses. Even foreign humanitarian aid comes with rules and regulations that medical supplies have to be purchased from American companies with American aid money, and American medical supplies are the most expensive in the world. Remember all the pharmaceuticals GWB "gave" to Afridan nations to help in their fight against AIDS. All it was was cash pledged to foreign nations so they could buy the drugs from American pharmaceutical companies, thereby the gesture was merely a US subsidy of the pharmaceutical companies!

How does this come about? Through rules and regulations.

There are many, many more examples of how government is actually working for the corporations through the Departments of State, Agriculture, and Commerce both within and external to this country. But this report just lumps it all together as a "cost" to the country. When you and I are paying for it, and the corporations are paying little to no taxes (even on a state and local level - but, hey, if they were paying taxes, they would only add it to the prices we pay for their goods and services as the lowest guy on the totem pole carries all the weight) this report just falls into the pile marked "why big government is evil".

lets say , oh a third of those regs really are required and are a valid cost of doing biz, then add another 10% for the beat each other like rented mules= stifle competition amongst each other, ala UPS colluding to force FedEx to unionize, another 20% to allay the usual statist caterwauling- your numbers are all wrong crying towel....so, that leaves us where?

That would depend on which industry. I have many regulations I have to follow in my work. I would say 99.5% make sense and frankly I WANT them there. If they were not there some things could get very ugly and no I won't provide details. I could do things much cheaper but it would cost lives and though no one would know it for quite a while our stock price would be based on falsehoods and slippery data. Not all regulation is good but as a member of the consuming public I am darned glad they are there. Be careful what you wish for.

What stops businesses from bribing bureaucrats and politicians to overlook their lack of compliance to the regulations? And as we all know, when they do get caught they'll simply pay a fine which is smaller than the profits from avoiding the regulations. All compulsory, hierarchical systems follow this pattern.

The Mob has corrupted many police officers, and has bribed juries and judges to escape criminal charges. Shall we get rid of the police, the jury system and judges because they can be and are corrupted? That is your vision of the oligarchs running the show, though you'll never admit it to yourself because it reflects that your entire belief system is sophomoric if not simple-minded.

If security and adjudication were provided in a free market then responsible individuals would have recourse to protection which was not compromised by fraudsters. In the current system one has no choice but to comply with laws which are written and enforced for the benefit of elite fraudsters. When people have choices they have more options and therefore a better chance at obtaining that which they seek. That ought to be self explanatory.

It is self-explanatory like a man who lives in the clouds is self-explanatory to a religious person. In your religion, a free market will never include those who cannot afford protection and those who will be thugs and rule over the others by force. The elite fraudsters of whom you speak as the current ruling class will not become even more powerful once the pesky corruptable political class and law enforcement apparatus is no longer in existence. And all unicorn rides will be free.

In your religion, a free market will never include those who cannot afford protection

Where do you get this stuff? Of course there would be people who couldn't afford protection. But those people would be paid for by others because it would be more advantageous to bring them into the system than to leave them outside of it where they would either become victims of crime or criminals themselves.

The fact remains that I chose to live by a rational assessment of my own nature and situation while you appeal to an elite class with esoteric knowledge for life instruction. That makes you the religious nut.

The sociopaths of whom you speak are the ones who will rule over you directly in your fantasy free market sans representative government. Speaking of which, you blame representative government for war? How then do you explain every war that was fought in history when the strong ruled the weak by force, which is what happens when you take away the collective power of the people via representative government? Do you think the power to build weapons and raise armies exists only in societies with elected governments?

The sociopaths are ruling over us now and are extracting resources (stealing) from us to be able to achieve that rule. Name any form of government, it's still a killing, destroying, stealing machine.

The strong (government) presently rules over the weak (productive individuals) by way of representative democracy now. Nothing has changed from the past, as to the strong ruling the weak: the power to build weapons and raise armies exists in ALL governments. So let's get rid of government.

And are you aware of the fact kings often had to borrow money to wage a war?

And what do you suppose those strong and wealthy sociopaths will do when there is no government at all? Go home because you asked them nicely? For most of human history, government consisted of a single man or a small group of men who took land by force, built armies and took more land by force, created laws that suited them, enforced those laws through violence, extracted labor and wealth from the weak by force or threat of force, and so on. "Government" is not just a concept that you can eliminate by employing a simplistic philosophy. Human beings will always be victims to sociopaths who will lead other men and women. Ask all of human history. Representative democracy is a brilliant check and balance that has major flaws, but it beats the shit out of your vision because it gives the average guy at least some power whereas in your system he would have zero.

And what do you suppose those strong and wealthy sociopaths will do when there is no government at all? Go home because you asked them nicely?

How would the bankers have gotten their bailout without government guns to back them up? Please explain how those bankers could have looted average folks savings for a trillion bucks without the support of government.

Are you really trying to make the point that wealthy sociopaths only exist because of government? They take advantage of whatever system exists. If there is no government, they step into the vacuum and create one and write their own rules (and you'll have no say in what those rules are, unlike now where you have at least a vote). Every King that ever came to power did so by creating his own rules, or by inheriting the wealth and station of his predecessor who did so. You must ignore human history completely in order to accept your naive view that a group of powerful people will not rule the rest of us regardless of what we want to call it.

They take advantage of whatever system exists. If there is no government, they step into the vacuum and create one and write their own rules

Intelligent and educated individuals can act willfully against such an outcome. Does freedom guarantee perfect results? Of course not. But it sure as hell beats asking the elite to take your money and kill your kids. Don't you see a problem with your suggestion that we must allow government to run roughshod over us because if we didn't then government would run roughshod over us?

You must ignore human history completely in order to accept your naive view that a group of powerful people will not rule the rest of us regardless of what we want to call it.

Right. Powered flight was impossible before 1903. Therefore the Wright Brothers were just silly dreamers who ignored history. If God had wanted man to fly he'd have given him wings. And that's why there is no such thing as an airplane. Nice sermon.

You are right, we should just let our sociopaths continue to do what they are doing forever. Hey, let's go find some libertarians and beat the shit out of them instead of showing the slightest bit of indignation against the current system.

Because the only alternative to the current incarnation of the current system is total anarchy. There is absolutely no thing between the two. In fact, we need some MORE government and bad regulation, since we are already uncomfortably close to an absolutely stateless society.

I think the estimates of regulatory costs are low. There are many many effects besides the direct costs of an accounting department. Many of the comments here elucidate that.

Svener, what I believe is that you would do most of the things in the regulatory code without the regulatory code anyway. What people who favor lots of regs seem to assume is that without them nothing good in this world would happen. Everyone would be completely evil, careless and false. That's stupid, even arrogant. Regs are developed by and for people on the pessimistic side of life. While there is a place for that you will never get anywhere new and good. In fact, pessimists virtually always take over companies after the founders and run them into the ground. They are the "no-nonsense" realists that cause most of the companies to fail while swearing to know exactly what to do and making sure you work 90 hours per week (if salaried).

When I discuss Obamacare I ask people, did government invent doctors, their certifications, training, medications, MRI machines, hospitals, insurance or anything else? The answer is "Hell, no!" Then why do you think the government is the "expert" in ruling all these things? Westerners have become so indoctrinated in the idea that except for government all human life on earth would perish...at least civilized life. I suggest the opposite. Governments start wars, put people in reeducation camps, starve their populations (N. Korea) and send Jews to ovens on a scale even your worst fears of freedom could not imagine. By the way, they do all this legally and according to their laws.

The reason government expertes could not close the well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico was because they did not know how. They don't even know the engineering involved but Congressmen with law degrees regulate it.

Svener, if complying with 99.5% of regs means you are a thoughtful and good guy in what you do, great! If you are then you would do them anyway, I can tell you in my line of work they are a huge and costly impediment and are used to limit competition. Not so great.

Right, because laws against pollution and assault are regulations, and would clearly be thrown out with the bathwater. Because the system that ended feudalism and the Dark Ages had so many and varied regulations, and we have only been cutting back since that time.

I'm not sure I can put any more sarcasm in than that.

You only need Glass Seagall when you have a central bank. You didn't get peacetime depressions prior to the implimintation of a central bank/use of fiat currency. Only short panics and post-war depressions.

Mr. Barofsky’s assessment of his former regulatory brethren is crucial for taxpayers to understand, because Congress’s financial reform act — the Dodd-Frank legislation — left so much of the heavy lifting to the weak-kneed.

“So much of what’s wrong with Dodd-Frank is it trusts the regulators to be completely immune to the corrupting influences of the banks,” he said in the interview. “That’s so unrealistic. Congress has to take a meat cleaver to these banks and not trust regulators to do the job with a scalpel.”

Finally, Mr. Barofsky joins the ranks of those who believe that another crisis is likely because of the failed response to this one. “Incentives are baked into the system to take advantage of it for short-term profit,” he said. “The incentives are to cheat, and cheating is profitable because there are no consequences.”

Direct impact might be overrated and limited to just halving
output and with all the reverse incentives and subsidies by another half. Opportunity cost for out of space entrepreneurs who still dare to venture out in this environment are surely astronomical. All or nothing on a scale did not look any prettier 20 years ago.

In real terms, I think the cost has been the rise of China, in more than one way: first, that industry could've stayed locally (had government facilitated its staying rather than leaving), and now that China has been developed, we can only hope that its demise might be equally parabolic, because if America's reign of tyranny on the world has sucked, then we don't even have vocabulary to describe what China would do to the world as a primary superpower.

You do realize that you are making the case for slave labor and no environmental rules in the U.S., right? Those are the factors that make it cost effective for Western businesses to build factories half way across the world. Your preferred model is a race to the bottom. But I'm sure that like almost all of your ilk, you believe you will personally benefit so fuck everyone else.

The point is not that a little bit of regulation is bad; the point is that the absolutely absurd levels of regulation we have are in fact crushing us.

Have you ever been involved in running a business? If so, you would quickly understand how crippling these regulations are. They serve only to enrich the bureaucrats, the politicians, and the giant corporations who are happy to comply because of the huge barriers to entry they create.

Funny how every fact that conflicts with your ideological vision becomes a straw man argument. Of course true believers will always reject those facts that conflict with their belief system and/or attack the person who presented the facts (e.g., by suggesting I know nothing about business, when in fact I am a small business owner). Of course pure ideology like religion is comforting so carry on.

It is interesting that you ignore the 10,000 or so years of failure of your belief system.

Four hundred million killed in the 20th century. Tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars of wealth stolen or destroyed

What's it going to be in the 21st? Four billion? Quadrillions wasted? The destruction of civilization? All because you and your ilk are wired to worship government and don't have the cognitive ability to resist it.

It is interesting that in your fantasy ideology based world we've had 10,000 years of representative democracy which is the system I believe is superior to all others. Seems to me that before the 1700's or so, we mostly had the strongest ruling everyone else by open force. With a few notable exceptions that didn't last long in comparison to human history as a whole, there were no elections and there were no rules at all for the ruling class. They had no one they had to bribe or corrupt. Your model of dismantling elected government in favor of the strong doing what they want would return us to humanity's ugly past. No thanks.

Ten thousnd years of an elite group of rulers living off the blood and sweat of productive people. Democracy hasn't changed anything except make the ongoing con more difficult to see through. All governments are parasites. They are killing, destroying, stealing machines.

Here is a book for you to read: Law for the Elephant - Property and Social Behavior on the Overland Trail by John Phillip Reid.

The Overland Trail that spread to the gold fields of California and Oregon was a trying ordeal; it tested the will and endurance of the American character. The experience of the trail not only shaped America geographically, but socially, politically, and economically as well. The trail also shaped another American institution: law. Law and the Overland Trail is a topic that deserves greater study to determine charaterisitcs of the overland trail and the development of law in America. Law during antebellum America focused on capital speculation and corporate structure, and a bed of safe property law allowed corporate proliferation to occur. Reid examines inherent social and legal developments of the Overland Trail with great detail by examining a plethora of sources. He examines diaries, papers and other records for inferences to legal conduct. Reid explores the use of property law on the Overland Trail. He concludes that property law was something that was inherent to Americans in general, and not something forced upon them by corporate America (p. 335). The trail is unique in American legal history, because it shows how Americans administered law in a lawless land. Reid starts the book with general assumptions about the trail, emigrants and jurisprudence. He notes that the emigrant is a typical American: man women, child, old Young, ethnic, educated and uneducated. This mass of humanity seeking a new existence, in a place presented as a paradise, was not a lawless immoral group as legend, and some scholarship dictates. In assuming so, Reid states that, "Easily overlooked is the possibility that law could be the common denominator, explaining both the definitions people shared and the conduct they followed" (p. 10). Reid examines a common thread: property rights. The remainder of the book examines the interrelationships, uses, and behaviors associated with property and property rights. He notes that the creation, operation, and dissolution of joint stock ventures operated with a high degree of jurisprudence. An interesting aspect explored is the concept of ownership. Except for natural resources such as water, property was an abstract concept. Emigrants abandoned property as the hardships of the trial demanded, to avoid liabilities associated with traveling weight. Emigrants obtained supplies by barter, or by acquiring discarded property (p. 293). Reid notes that the transfer and handling of property, whether by and individual, or partnership was peaceful, and rarely was violence employed as a means of resolution (p. 341-54). Reid concludes by stating, "Instead, they respected the rights of property owners much as if still back east in the midst of plenty. By respect for their neighbor, and their neighbors property, they were, more than not, adhering to a morality of law" (p. 364). Law for the Elephant is an excellent macro interpretation of property, legal, and social relations of California gold rush emigrants. Another advantage the work provides us is an understanding of why current views of property came to be. The research is well covered, and the readability of the book is excellent. The book not only provides generalizations about law and the Overland Trail, but gives insight into how emigrants acted at the micro level as well.

So the fact that we spend ten times more on regulation than we bring in from corporate taxes seems perfectly efficient and acceptable to you?

Talk about being blinded by ideology.

I notice you continue to bitch and moan about individuals and producers, but still no word or work on reform of regulators. You see people complaining about inefficient regulators and you go after them like a mad dog, even though that is the exact same argument you yourself make when backed into a corner.

Anyone else see the irony in this statement? I thought Libertarians were people who got the job done and made things happen.

I've been waiting my entire adult life for the Libertarians to go buy an island somewhere and set up their utopian example of living for all to see and envy. I'm now 51 and still I wait....

There are a few conclusions to this situation:

1. really wealthy people who could assist in making this venture happen aren't really libertarians as the myth itself tries to conclude, so their own self interest prefers a serf-styled system like our current one, which Libertopia would turn into quickly itself. So why bother?;

2. the Libertarian system first needs to have a Statist system eliminate the indigenous people in and area and build the appropriate infrastructure for the libertarians to then come in and show everyone else how it's done;

3. Libertarians are all so self absorbed in their own self interest that they cannot get together at even the most basic levels to go make this happen.

4. It's a whole lot easier to get righteous and proselytise with the libertarian myth on message boards and claim victory there than to actually make it happen.

I am sure there are many other excuses...er...reasons why we have no Libertopia to set an example for us in the real world, but that's a good start.

Sorry, but that's a myth too. This country was set up as a corporation to enhance the freedom, wealth and property of the ownership class. They really didn't care about the property of anyone else...women, slaves, indentured servants. This system was merely a half step up from the serf/feudal systems of earlier ages.

I'm not so sure the problem is that people prefer enslavement over liberty rather than people have been lied to about history and have been repressed through all kinds of laws and cultural barriers to keep them enslaved, For all the excitement and bitching that goes into our major elections every four years, 98% of the presidents, congress, and courts purpose is maintain the status quo of wealth and power for the already wealthy and powerful. It was made this way from the start.

5. Most libertarians do not actually want the system they advocate and they know full well it will never be implemented because it exists only in theory. Their ideology is primarily a device to rationalize their own selfish desire not to contribute to the society from which they benefit.

Again with the misplaced attack suggesting that I somehow take taxpayer handouts. Ironically I'll bet your company has received plenty of funding from the government, at least indirectly by doing business with the likes of Haliburton which is the biggest welfare queen on the planet in that it extracts billions each year from the taxpayer.

Never did business with Haliburton, you lying liar. We entered into a codevelopment agreement with a small frack fluid manufacturer who stopped talking with us almost a year ago. No money ever changed hands. Not that it would matter if it did, as that was only one of a hundred different development projects I have participated in.

Also funny that you think R&D personel are somehow hypocritical for disagreeing with the policies of some of their client's clients.

And it was hardly an attack. You do little more than handwave, and find an excuse to halt all argument and pretend that you have won. You are very good at it, and clearly have years of experience at it. I am just saying that you should be recognized for your great contributions to the field with an honorary degree. At taxpayer expense, of course.

Has the little R&D company for which you work ever accepted taxpayer funding for a project or been hired by a company that was being paid by the government? If so, do you acknowledge that your words are inconsistent with your actions?

Sorry, but why should I be held accountable for the actions of my company?

Further, it should be noted that I actually am on record many times encouraging anyone and everyone to assist in the destruction of this terminally corrupt system by taking as much as they can in government handouts. Even your greatest villian in world history, Ayn Rand held that postion. In Atlas Shrugged, the suggested that people do as the government asked of them, and stop working. In life, she took Social security and Medicare.

I notice that you are continuing to probe for little morsels to be used as ad hominem, rather than suggesting methods of regulatory reform. As such, it is now 100% clear that my initial assesment of you was correct, and you are in fact nothing more than a state-loving prick who will defend the current system to the death, and call for nothing but more power for it.

I can't speak for other libertarians, of course, but I absolutely do want the system I advocate, I absolutely do want to pay my own way, and I absolutely do believe that refraining from the initiation of violence is the best way to improve the lives of everyone.

It's one thing to argue against libertarian views; I'm fine with that. I'll never understand, however, why so many people (particularly on the left) ascribe such terrible motives to us. For example, I think your views are idiotic and would lead to worse outcomes across the board, but I would never accuse you of "wanting the poor to die". I just think you're wrong.

The whole point is that all self-described libertarians would and often do say the same thing. Unfortunately for the credibility of all of you, actions speak louder than words. It's like Obama saying that he will end the pointless wars, roll back the Patriot Act, inject transparency into government, and on and on. Maybe he believed he would do all of those things, maybe he didn't. But it doesn't really matter, does it.

If you think I never criticize Obama or that I do not openly and frequently call him a complete and utter tool of the oligarchs, you aren't paying attention. But then again I guess those would be facts that are inconvenient to your position, so you dismiss/ignore them. I voted for Obama's words. His actions reveal that his words were lies or at the very least that he was too incompetent to implement them. Either way, he is a dismal failure as a President like the last several we've had.

As for your ilk being out of power for 100 years, that is just laughable. Again, you confuse actions and words.

Hahaha! Yeah, whatever you say, word voter! You voted for Obama. I can't fucking believe it. And now you have the GALL to come on here and criticize LIBERTARIANS for the policies of the people YOU voted for! I never voted for a fucking R or D.

Christ, the farce hit full steam, and I started laughing! I'm disappointed in myself for not getting it sooner!

Unlike you, I can admit to a mistake and to being fooled. Try it some time. And there are plenty of other threads where I've discussed my poor voting history if you're that interested in it. I voted for Obama primarily because I thought he would dismantle some of the Patriot Act damage done by Bush and promised to be stepped up by McCain.

P.S. You should really rethink your position that there is something wrong with criticizing someone for whom you cast a vote based upon false promises. Given that you have distinguished yourself from the no government crowd that often chimes in on your posts, I would assume that you would agree that calling out politicians who make false promises is a bedrock part of our system.

Blah blah blah. The fact is that you voted based on false words, and you continue to act based on false words. You are a failed human.

Indeed, you have done NOTHING but criticize PEOPLE, and have done NOTHING to criticize the bureaucrats and politicians who have destroyed our country. And you never will.

Prove me wrong. Do nothing but criticize the actions of the government that have created and perpetuated this crisis. Speak no more of the people and businesses who at most offered the apple, and only speak of those with power who bit into it.

Have to agree with you on that one. As soon as the statement "I voted for his words..." was made it all became crystal clear. Anyone ignorant enough to have voted for that sack of excrement is just that... ignorant. Any amount of fact checking and/or research before voting would have been evidence enough to not walk but RUN from supporting him. Ignorance is bliss. Quite handy to vote the heart and soul of conviction (knowing deep down what he stood for) and then renounce it when it unveils ones ignorance publicly. Any further argument simply proves his ignorance, it isn't a viably defensible position. Period.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." - James Madison -----------------------------------------------------------------------------We have been brought up by the progressives (liberals) that without stealing from our neighbor, there is no way to help the poor and those that need help. That is the biggest lie every put out there...and most of the American people have fallen for it.

[Including you, apparently!]

How convenient it is, to have a Big Brother willing to rob yer neighbors and assuage your aching conscience by giving that Munny to people you approve of. Grow a pair Robin Hood, and DO IT YOURSELF!

That scion of truth, liberty, and freedom...and champion of the "free market" George W. Bush(and cronies) were not above using the power of government to steal when it would benefit them.

Maybe someday someone will realize why I absolutely despise what passes for both the so-called 'right'(aka 'conservatives', red, or (R)) and 'left'(aka 'liberals', blue, or (D) ) and what they have become in today's world. Neither are more than a hypocritical farce...from the top, down to their lowliest hangers-on.

And this sort of hypocrisy goes back far beyond just Oblahma and Bush II as I've come to find out.

The story was first reported by Texas reporter Robert Brice in May 1997, late in Bush’s first term as governor of Texas:

Since he took to the stump three and a half years ago to run for governor, Bush has railed against “big government.” On the very first day of his campaign, November 8, 1993, Bush told supporters in Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas that “the best way to allocate resources in our society is through the market place. Not through a governing elite, not through red tape and over-regulation, not through some central bureaucracy.”

But through the Arlington stadium deal, Bush, who owns 1.8 percent of the Rangers, has been personally enriched by using the “governing elite” and the “central bureaucracy” not only to confiscate land for private purposes, but to get a huge public subsidy for a stadium that generates profits for himself and the Texas Rangers. Though Bush’s present ownership percentage of the team is relatively small, the asset represents a large part of his personal wealth; moreover, Bush’s deal with the team includes a provision that will almost certainly multiply his future ownership interest to 11 percent.

Briefly, here’s what happened on the Ballpark deal. Bush and his partners in the Rangers convinced Arlington officials to:

Pass a half cent sales tax to pay for 70 percent of the stadium;

Use the government’s powers of eminent domain to condemn land the Rangers couldn’t or didn’t want to buy on the open market;

Give the Rangers control over what happens in and around the stadium;

Allow the Rangers to buy the stadium (which cost $191 million to construct) for just $60 million;

I'm fine with that. I'll never understand, however, why so many people (particularly on the left) ascribe such terrible motives to us.

____________________

Maybe the inheritance from the past.

Libertarians are a sub set of US citizens.

When one looks at US citizens proclaimed motives, their actual acts, it is expected that after 236 years of US citizenism, people no longer fall that easily for proclaimed motives when they come out of US citizen mouths.

America was the Libertarian experiment you moron. The entire Constitution fits in your pocket and government was limited to elucidated powers. States were supreme because they had to agree to form the Federal government. It took a 2/3 vote as you might recall. States had lots of relatively unlimited power. The Feds had strictly limited power, mainly to protect civil rights and deal with other nations. That was it. Outside of the Army and Post Office there were no national institutions outside of the government itself.

It worked pretty well till the 20th century when genius progressives and statists fell in love with their own conceits thinking they could manage everyone and everything to the better.

There is no libertarian myth. The myth is the that there are selfless, disinterested, angelic government geniuses that are smart enough to run everything in your life from the Big Gulp to energy production. That is the the myth, the fantasy and the big f**king lie of the centuries.

"Please show me where libertarian policy has been implimented anywhere on the planet Earth."

Hence a good reason to call "libertarian policy" a utopian myth even though the believers will argue endlessly about its supreme wonderfulness.

Libertarian policy as given by a Libertarian true believer is right up there with the rapture, heaven, hell, etc... Things that have no basis or precedent in known reality, yet are constantly thrown about by true believers as though they are absolutely real. Not only that, they are going to happen just around the next corner...no, the next corner...well, maybe the next corner...the next corner?

You still haven't explained why living one's life based on first hand observations of one's situation and knowledge of one's own talents, faults, desires and needs is an expression of religious sentiment while appealing to an elite class in possession of esoteric knowledge to provide answers as to how billions of individuals they have never met should live is not a religious pursuit.

There are more logical courses of action and less logical courses of action. While one may fail while pursuing what one considers to be the more rational option that does not mean that seeking the most rational option is the result of a philosophical flaw. You can't win 'em all and shit happens.

We can run around this tree all afternoon if you like but I'd still like to know why you believe that living your own life based on a rational assessment of your situation and needs is religious while appealing to an elite class for life instruction based not on your personal situation but on some esoteric knowledge is not religious. Would you care to answer?

I'm not the guy who claims to have all the answers. Those would be the guys I see in the "Liberty Movement" and, in the realm of finance, the Austrians at this point.

It's easy to knock down other approaches because nothing is perfect.

But one gets the clear, and I think accurate, impression of the "libertarians" in general that their vision is perfect. No problems. Nobody will ever be systematically abused by big money, that's fer sher. Just eliminate government. Pretty much end of story.

Justice will necesarily prevail. As long as it would work for you, it would be pretty damn good and, by extension, if everybody did the same it would be good for everybody if they just got with the program. Come to Jesus one and all. God doesn't compromise.

If you can't name any problems with that program yourself, then you are, by definition, suffering a self-righteousness that is religiosity by any name.

Personally, it reminds me of the old Soviets. Ironic that it is so often and so deeply posed in opposition to the commies.

I'm not the guy who claims to have all the answers. Those would be the guys I see in the "Liberty Movement" and, in the realm of finance, the Austrians at this point.

Do you willfully chose to misunderstand? We believe that we have a greater opportunity to fulfill our own needs and desires if we are not barred from attempting to fulfill our own needs and desires. That ought to be self explanatory. It is the statists who claim to have "all the answers" as well as the right to imprison or kill those who disagree with those answers.

But one gets the clear, and I think accurate, impression of the "libertarians" in general that their vision is perfect. No problems. Nobody will ever be systematically abused by big money, that's fer sher. Just eliminate government. Pretty much end of story.

Who claimed that? A libertarian society would be flawed because people are flawed. It would simply have the opportunity to be less flawed that collectivist regimes. Now if you'll abandon your straw men, Id still like to know why desiring to live your own life based on observation of your own situation and needs is a religious sentiment while appealing to an elite class for answers which they can not possible possess is not religious.

That's no straw man. But, by all means, let's shift the focus, right? That's how this works, I notice. We must never, ever, ever acknowledge the problem of Big Boss Money . . . for the first time in human history he won't be an issue--now that's fucking progress!

But your question is so bound up in its own terms and assumptions as to be senseless to me.

I'd prefer to hear about this new divine being you've introduced into your parable: Big Boss Money. What is he, some kind of fallen angel? Of course such religious dogma has precedent in the biblical observation that the love of money is the root of all evil. You've simply adopted religious imagery and converted it to your own use in same way that Christianity adopted pagan symbols and festivals.

I DO NOT claim to have all the answers. Why do you insist that I do? I simply understand that I have a better knowledge of my own situation than do the members of an elite class positioned in a marble temple on a faraway hill. That is a rational observation.

Why do you support collectivists who not only claim to have all the answers but who also imprison or kill those who doubt those answers? How can you fail to see that your belief that man is flawed and therefore must be compelled to accept the divinations and harsh ministrations of an elite class is a carbon copy of religious dogma and control?

I have no illusions about the imperfection of that doctrine. It certainly could stand improvement. This, to my mind, is what most easily stands out in contrast to "religious" ideology.

Power corrupts, CA. Not that people who have it necessarily see that as a problem, but government is a potential and at least partly intended obstacle to its full exploitive expression. If you can't understand that compromise intuitively, what's the point in arguing about it?

No one gets "absolute power" legitimately. Obama and Bush come to mind as guys who should be tried for treason and rimes against humanity. I get the problem. But outlawing government would be as stupid as outlawing private wealth; otoh, f they're not in tension with one another, particularly at the extremes of each (say, POTUS and Wall Street), we are gonna be double-fucked at best.

I know how you could keep this one rolling along, but the width of this column makes that patently absurd.

What, so there is no in between of 10X corporate revenues and zero regulations?

But the defenders of the state don't want to talk about that. They wanter to pillory anarchism as a strawman for libertarianism, centrism, and slightly less facism. What you and Randy boy here are doing is so clear that this can't be anything but a farce. But a farce is supposed to be funny, and I haven't laughed at one of these exchanges even once.

But then, maybe a farce is only funny to an observer, not to a participant.

Purposeful ignorance is not an excuse. That was a tiny portion of the post, and the entire thing was directed at you personally. You decline to answer any of it based on the fact that I included another person in part of the charges against you.

I am not in favor of outlawing government. Anyone who wishes to live at the behest of others is welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned. But should I ever discover a break in the fence don't expect me to come scurrying up to the front gate asking for re-admittance.

Power corrupts, CA. Not that people who have it necessarily see that as a problem, but government is a potential and at least partly intended obstacle to its full exploitive expression. If you can't understand that compromise intuitively, what's the point in arguing about it?

What you call an intuitive understanding I call a faith based, self contradictory fallacy. If power corrupts how can centralizing and magnifying power lead to less corruption? It can't. The most heinous acts in history have been committed by governments not free individuals. Can you name any businessmen who have killed more individuals than Hitler or Stalin or LBJ?

We both know they had government to do it for them, CA. Getting rid of government in no way gets rid of them or what their money can do (am I supposed to blame government for what it's doing right now?)

Well said and reasoned, Crockett in your posts. I would reinforce the simple fact that libertarians recognize the flaws in mankind and the world at large. The question becomes how to minimize the flaws and lesser parts of our nature.

The leftist says that the way is through infinite regulation and redistribution of labor, money and life's results. It promises a real utopia with enough government and control. It's achille's heal is that while flawed people are in society none of them make it to the eilte ranks of government. It also assumes there is some sort of "solution" that works for everyone on earth and that they alone know it. It is arrogant at it's core.

The rightist (libertarian type, not national socialist) addresses flaws by saying that men should not have much power over each other or it gets abused and is even corrupting itself. Notice Blagovich trying to sell a Senate seat. Government is also pretty much limited to negative law in that it may prevent harm but no compel good as "good" gets very vague and maleable in the wrong hands. All socialists whether Soviet or National will tell you they were doing good as people were shipped to gulags and ovens. Libertarians conversely posit that there is no utopia on this side of earth but there is a better way. We also assume there is no one solution for everyone on earth and we each must captain our own ship. No one short of God himself (or no one if you are an atheist libertarian) has the wisdom to rule all of life and render perfect judgement as to proper outcomes. So, we don't do it.

Crockett, you are debating someone firmly ensconced in the leftist myth. It's llike trying to explain physics to an alchemist. But the argument is worth making for others with an open mind and ability to reason.

Crockett, you are debating someone firmly ensconced in the leftist myth. It's llike trying to explain physics to an alchemist. But the argument is worth making for others with an open mind and ability to reason.

Where there's life there's hope. Not more than seven years ago I was saying things like "Freedom is all well and good but in a world of 7 billion people some socialism is necessary." It feels so good to have learned otherwise!

Every problem that these idiot statists point out is also a problem in the current system, and is LESS of a problem in the libertarian system, in reality.

The "problem" with libertarianism and freedom is that it requires time to cure the hurts imposed by the old system, while at the same time promoting people who would have otherwise been farmhands to do things like muckrake and write books fantasizing about impossible economic systems that only kill people, and creates enough resources that the government can start to grow and grow until we get a system like we have now. But things don't have to go that way, if we could just be VIGILENT, and maybe put in a constitutional amendment against having a central bank, we could keep the productive cycle going lng enough that we could enter the economy of plenty.

The last time gave us just enough of a boost to reach an electronic version of that ideal with the Internet. Just one more tiny push should be enough to bring that model into real goods.

Also, funny that you are reminded of the Soviets. They failed, just like all other communist countries failed, while all capitalist countries have thrived. The more capitalist they were, the greater the degree of advancement. But people can't see that extremely simple correlation because they have short attention spans, and thus confuse the eating of seed corn with prosperity.

I just love how you guys rewrite history to suit your objectives. The United States thrived economically for most of the 20th century despite meaty taxes, stiff environmental and labor regulations, strong unions, and everything else that you believe is the root of all evil. Anyone with eyes to see can discern that the U.S. started going downhill when good manufacturing jobs were sent to regulation free countries that offered abundant slave labor, followed by loose banking regulation that allowed the bankers to replace productivity with financialization and debt. Our system has many flaws that need major repair, but the idea that the system itself is the problem is absurd when you look at our historical success as a nation. Yet you are repeatedly asked and can never identify a single nation that prospered under your proposed system.

The US prospered after WWII because the rest of the industrialized world was blown up. The US was able to leverage this advantage and make the US dollar the world's reserve currency. That let the US send paper overseas in exchange for goods until the French started demanding gold. Then Nixon closed the gold window and the conversion of the Bretton-Woods accord to the petrodollar standard was completed by 1975. This allowed the US to import even more goods in exchange for paper as long as the bulk of manufacturing moved overseas. Government and its cronies prospered. The average worker did not. Government is the problem.

You keep saying that, and you keep ignoring my answer. The US from the end of Reconstruction through 1913. Similarly, all other nations that industrialized throughout the course of history did so by liberalizing at least their economies if not their entire social system. Russia freed the serfs. England allowed private investigators and anyone else to openly carry pistols.

You bitch and moan about slavery, but you can't actually find any slaves, can you? China was 100% slaves in the 1970's, but then they liberalized, and as a result of their liberalization, they have prospered, and built up an industrial base. Sure, the wages aren't super, but they are definitly rising.

Further, I don't really see where I said anything about getting rid of the entire system. I just think that the current one is absurd. I want to cut it back. But you don't want to do that, you think "if we can just enact the right regulation THIS TIME, we can make it work." Well, you've had 40 years to try that, and you have had nothing but failure. Time to let someone else have a shot.

Was the CRA a libertarian public policy...how about ObamaCare, er ObamaTax? The Great Society?...Social Security?...stop me when I hit on one...SNAP cards?...Medicare?...student loans?...bank bailouts...pant pant pant...how about crony capitalist green shit?...Fannie Mae?....Freddie Mac...economic mushroom clouds from debt bombs all across the globe?

What you fail to admit (or understand) is that everything I put up there is socialist...a softer, more palatable version to be sure, without the visuals of skulls being crushed beneath the tank tracks of communism, but nonetheless its what it is.

You recognized it too didn't you Bob or you wouldn't have screeched "Commie"...lol.

What you will have to come to grips with is the oligarchial structure of socialism/communism.

It requires a "bleeding" of the productive class doesn't it? Where does this extracted "blood" go first?...to the corner store for milk & bread for the poor or to the capitol and the power structure there?

Then where Bob?...and how much is left after they all take their cut? I don't want to ever see you railing against "the rich" anymore while advocating for millionaire senators and their crony's get even more to play around with.

You're promoting the theft of workers wages by the rich & powerful, that is, to the oligarchs according to their abilitiy to do it, to each according to their needs, entrusting that they, in their omnificence, intellect and good will, dole it out fairly, blindly and proportionally, the end result being the enslavement of that portion of the population to the state (and them) through socialism.

So never darken my door with your "color" plantation style bullshit again, I'm immune to it while you remain enthralled with the chains of it.

I had a real clever snappy reply, but upon review I have to concede that the parallel I drew between dumb broads (Bachmann being the affirmed anti-commie) was over-extended past the point of good judgment by touching on race. I didn't mean it as harshly as you took it. I apologize for that.

I'll have to still judge for myself whether I'm a commie, however. There's a whole school of Austrians who agree with you, but imo they're . . . untenable.

Oh, I see, don't debate the merits of whateverthefuck you believe in or feel that makes you what you claim to be as an individual...just blindly fall in line behind the guy in front of you...he's the all knowing, all powerful smart one.

Good luck with that, shrink.

If you had any integrity left at all within you now, you would get your fingers out of other peoples obviously confused heads because you clearly don't know what the fuck you're doing yourself...or to them.

Or do you?

//////////////////

Just so you know, the apology is not accepted.

No one gets "brownie" (har deee har har, bleh!) points for dragging race into a philosophical argument. Just like they don't get them for teabagging slams against TP by way of gays...really, who knew or even cared?

You also don't get do overs just because you apologize...something within you went there...thats something you have to deal with, not me.

Orwellian doublethink. Blame captialism, claim there is no such thing as libertarian policy in the entire world.

The FACT IS that libertarian policy prevailed in the US from the end of Reconstruction right on through 1913, during which time the United States grew from a primative backwater to a world power verging on a superpower.

You are getting so ridiculous in your blind faith that you are now openly contradicting yourself within a few posts. Here is Tmosley the fracker a few posts ago: "Please show me where libertarian policy has been implimented anywhere on the planet Earth."

That is wildly inaccurate. Slavery existed prior to 1865. Can't get more anti-libertarian than that. You might make an argument that the NORTH was fairly libertarian, as those individual states outlawed slavery, but even then, I don't think they really treated blacks as people.

Right. You guys don't admit it when you make a mistake. You attack the person who points it out. Again, seems I struck a nerve. You sure are sensitive for such a rough and tumble individualist. Then again, more proof it's all just an act.

The FACT IS that libertarian policy prevailed in the US from the end of Reconstruction right on through 1913, during which time the United States grew from a primative backwater to a world power verging on a superpower.

_________________________

Well, US citizens are expansionist.

The first stage of expansion of US citizens is the US was to turn Indian lands into colonies.

The Indian land transfer process ended in 1898. It marked the moment when the US had to turn elsewhere to keep the expansion process.

It is only logical that at that moment, the colonization of Indian land being digested, the US has to turn to somewhere else to keep the expansion.

Hence the growing status of world power. Before turning a world power, the US had to grow into a regional power first. When achieved, well, onward on.

Well said, but you'll have as much luck convincing these hard-core believers as you would convincing any religious person that their entire belief system is a myth.

You believe that man is flawed (original sin) and that he must therefore appeal to an elite class (the temple priests) in order to know how to live. I just want to assess my own situation for myself. And you call me religious!

You believe that the myth of the free market will prevent oligarchs, Lords, Kings, Tribal Leaders, and/or the Mob from taking over society and ruling it by force and treating the non-elite as virtual slaves when regulation through elected officials is abolished, when the entirety of human history proves you are wrong.

You believe that the myth of the free market will prevent oligarchs, Lords, Kings, Tribal Leaders, and/or the Mob from taking over society and ruling it by force

Ah, a straw man! I believe that only the freedom to make one's own choices can reduce the threat posed by fraudsters and criminals. Government puts criminals in charge with a monopoly on the use of violence and therefore can not protect individuals from criminals. That ought to be self evident as should this: only a free man can be free.

treating the non-elite as virtual slaves when regulation through elected officials is abolished, when the entirety of human history proves you are wrong.

You're counting on elected officials to save you and you think you're not religious? It takes incredible faith in your elite masters to believe that the world they have legislated and regulated us into is working well. But if singing hymns and passing the plate makes you feel better, then feel free. Just don't expect me to sing along.

Explain how you plan to remove or eliminate elites fromyour system. Do we all start from square one or do we start from here and call it a level playing field? Fill me in on how you have these wonderful free markets unencumbered by elites. I would love to know how this is done myself.

There is no problem with elites who obtain status through merit and who will lose status as their merit declines. The problem lies with an elite class recognized not for their ability to perform specific tasks in an efficient manner but simply through the acquisition and use of a monopoly on violence.

Can't we just make the monopoly issue simple, without having to get into the bullshit of whether it was "earned/deserved" or not? Unless our game rules are perfect in some transcendental moral sense, can we just agree that a rule of the road is you don't get to have one? And we don't have to even think about whether you deserve one or not. A guy can whine how that ain't fair, but the guy so gifted as that surely can do it again somewhere else if the fabulous riches he's earned to that point are all he's gonna get to go with another chance to be a genius from scratch? Or retire and STFU.

Society doesn't have time for all this philosophical bullshit. There are times to just fucking solve problems sensibly. Fer chrissakes.

No private ownership of nuclear weapons, either. Private monopolies and nuclear weapons are just so obviously bad. We really shouldn't overthink these things.

Of course not. The only way to obtain a monopoly in a free market is to offer a product or service at a price point which is attractive to 100% of potential customers and of course that never happens.

Can't we just make the monopoly issue simple, without having to get into the bullshit of whether it was "earned/deserved" or not?

Commercial success is determined by fulfilling a need at an acceptable price. If one discourages the production of valuable goods and services at an acceptable price then people will go hungry and naked. That's a bad thing.

If you claim to oppose any and all monopolies then why do you want government to have a monopoly on the use of violence? They kill all the innocent people they want and we get the bill. That's a bad thing, too.

Society doesn't have time for all this philosophical bullshit. There are times to just fucking solve problems sensibly. Fer chrissakes.

OK. Tell me your personal problems and we'll get society to work on them right away. Nevermind the fact that the 300 million people who will decide your fate don't know you or care about you and don't give a damn about your problems as they have problems of their own. It all sounds fishy to me but you're better at keeping the faith than I am.

No private ownership of nuclear weapons, either. Private monopolies and nuclear weapons are just so obviously bad. We really shouldn't overthink these things.

I'm not aware of any individuals who are seeking nuclear arms, are you? I am aware that the governments of the world have produced enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the planet dozens of times over. But that must be a good and necessary thing because it's been done by the elites at the expense of individuals.

Monopoly is idealistic. Most of the times, the situation is oligopolistic.

Indeed the muchly so yes. Adherence to ideals of Chinese citizenism as prescribed by Mao's booking of small redness better served by Chutes and Ladders. Most of the times, the situation is Candylandistic.

Isn't it kind of crazy to continually resort to putting words in the mouths of those with whom you have a disagreement? What could your motivation possibly be? Other than yourself whom are you trying to fool?

Such things have existed, but only in the past. What you would call "American Citizenism" has taken over the entire planet. But of course, that is a tautology, as everything is American Citizenism to you, even before America was formed.

In reality, it is the central banks, and the vast governments and corporations that have grown up around them that have taken over the world. It is true that there is no escape--no place one can go and just work without interference, though there are plenty of places that one can go and simply live off savings, so long as those savings are held as precious metals.